How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 02:50pm

Simple question really, for those who support Bush, how much farther would he have to take his current direction before you would stop supporting him? He already allows the Injustice Department under John Ashcroft to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he casts aside the Geneva Convention when convenient, he runs up gigantic deficits and then touts the resulting increase in GDP (pop quiz, how do you add $500 billion to the GDP? Answer: run a $500 billion deficit!), he invades countries based on false premises which are then repeatedly revised after the fact, yet none of that fazes his supporters. So what would he have to do in order to lose your support?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-11-01 02:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:Simple question really, for those who support Bush, how much farther would he have to take his current direction before you would stop supporting him? He already allows the Injustice Department under John Ashcroft to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he casts aside the Geneva Convention when convenient, he runs up gigantic deficits and then touts the resulting increase in GDP (pop quiz, how do you add $500 billion to the GDP? Answer: run a $500 billion deficit!), he invades countries based on false premises which are then repeatedly revised after the fact, yet none of that fazes his supporters. So what would he have to do in order to lose your support?

as long as he doesn't kill any Puppies....

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-01 02:53pm

I'd like to hear some answers too. It seems people blindly follow him for the most bizarre and useless reasons like he's religious or not afraid of war or such stupid things like that.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-11-01 02:58pm

He would have to eat premature babies live on TV while performing Satanic rituals. But some people still wouldn't be fazed.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-01 03:05pm

the problem is, not enough people feel the negative effects of his incompetance. Jimmy Carter and Bush I got voted out because the unemployment rate was high enough to be felt. It isn't nearly that high right now, and I'm afraid Bush will benefit from that. Frankly i'm hard pressed to name a single friend family memeber or even aquaintance who is currently unemplyed.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-01 03:06pm

I voted for him in 2000. What lost my support was the idea that the Patroit Act wasn't enough, especally since I felt it was to far. Patroit II horrorified me.

And then there was Iraq. If he had ran the occiupation decently or allowed those who know what the fuck we're doing to run it, Iraq wouldn't be in such a mess. I won't pretend that it would be a garden run. But it didn't have to get this bad and chaotic and he should know it. Instead I get to watch brothers in arms pissed away for cheap poll point.

Throw in the Gay Marriage Ban. Look I don't believe a Christian Church should conduct such a wedding, I never will barring divine relation. But there's a difference between saying "Sorry we don't do that, try down the street." and "MY BELIEFS WILL BE LAW!" Whatever happened in the past, I can't help, but I can try to prevent this.

There's a seperation between church and state for a reason. Niether function well when joined to the other and people who don't need be hurt, get hurt.

And that's why despite my dislike of the man, I'm voting Kerry.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-11-01 03:14pm

Mike my question to you is:

Why do you think Bush supporters don't view GWB as an extreemist?

You get a cookie if the answer has nothing at all to do with religon.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-01 03:24pm

frigidmagi wrote:I voted for him in 2000. What lost my support was the idea that the Patroit Act wasn't enough, especally since I felt it was to far. Patroit II horrorified me.

And then there was Iraq. If he had ran the occiupation decently or allowed those who know what the fuck we're doing to run it, Iraq wouldn't be in such a mess. I won't pretend that it would be a garden run. But it didn't have to get this bad and chaotic and he should know it. Instead I get to watch brothers in arms pissed away for cheap poll point.

Throw in the Gay Marriage Ban. Look I don't believe a Christian Church should conduct such a wedding, I never will barring divine relation. But there's a difference between saying "Sorry we don't do that, try down the street." and "MY BELIEFS WILL BE LAW!" Whatever happened in the past, I can't help, but I can try to prevent this.

There's a seperation between church and state for a reason. Niether function well when joined to the other and people who don't need be hurt, get hurt.

And that's why despite my dislike of the man, I'm voting Kerry.

As much as I dislike me-too's, other than my not supporting Kerry and I voting Libertarian in 2000, this expresses my sentiments exactly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:26pm

Augustus wrote:Mike my question to you is:

Why do you think Bush supporters don't view GWB as an extreemist?

You get a cookie if the answer has nothing at all to do with religon.

What makes you think I said that? My question is why they support him despite the fact that he's obviously an extremist, and I'm asking just how much more extreme he would have to get before they drop their support. Next time you try answering a question, try to answer the one on the screen, not the one you pull out of your ass. It's not as if "extreme" is a binary condition, although I know black and white thinking is endemic to Bush supporters.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-01 03:27pm

It's bad etiquette to answer a question with another question.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:32pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's bad etiquette to answer a question with another question.

Especially when it's such an obviously transparent attempt to avoid answering the original question.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-01 03:58pm

theski wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Simple question really, for those who support Bush, how much farther would he have to take his current direction before you would stop supporting him? He already allows the Injustice Department under John Ashcroft to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he casts aside the Geneva Convention when convenient, he runs up gigantic deficits and then touts the resulting increase in GDP (pop quiz, how do you add $500 billion to the GDP? Answer: run a $500 billion deficit!), he invades countries based on false premises which are then repeatedly revised after the fact, yet none of that fazes his supporters. So what would he have to do in order to lose your support?
as long as he doesn't kill any Puppies....

Don't be so sure. He could declare the puppy an enemy combatant and be absolved of all wrong-doing.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-01 04:00pm

Durandal wrote: Don't be so sure. He could declare the puppy an enemy combatant and be absolved of all wrong-doing.

Nothing wrong with that. It's all legal that way. What's that? Morally bankrupt? Never heard of that term.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-11-01 04:01pm

Durandal wrote:
theski wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Simple question really, for those who support Bush, how much farther would he have to take his current direction before you would stop supporting him? He already allows the Injustice Department under John Ashcroft to ignore Supreme Court rulings, he casts aside the Geneva Convention when convenient, he runs up gigantic deficits and then touts the resulting increase in GDP (pop quiz, how do you add $500 billion to the GDP? Answer: run a $500 billion deficit!), he invades countries based on false premises which are then repeatedly revised after the fact, yet none of that fazes his supporters. So what would he have to do in order to lose your support?
as long as he doesn't kill any Puppies....
Don't be so sure. He could declare the puppy an enemy combatant and be absolved of all wrong-doing.

Sorry... I ment Beagle Puppies.....

... Labs... Retrievers... thats fine..

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-01 04:04pm

Kind of reminds me of Robin Williams' bit on Lassie snitching on Dick Cheney.

"What's that girl? Mr. Cheney is meeting with the Enron people?"
"Sorry girl, we're gonna hafta putcha down."

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-11-01 04:11pm

Technically, he's been alienating his supporters since day one, but he could erasily lose most of his support if he did everything he's doing now, just even worse. Take the PATRIOT Act a step further and declare Martial Law. Let civil war break out in Iraq. Invade Ecuador for the hell of it. Get unemployment into the double digits. Attack not only gays, but other minorities as well.

Of course, there is that portion of his vote base that would support him no matter what as long as them gays ain't marryin', and in that case, moving further to the right would just make them even more devout.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-11-01 04:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Augustus wrote:Mike my question to you is:

Why do you think Bush supporters don't view GWB as an extreemist?

You get a cookie if the answer has nothing at all to do with religon.
What makes you think I said that? My question is why they support him despite the fact that he's obviously an extremist, and I'm asking just how much more extreme he would have to get before they drop their support. Next time you try answering a question, try to answer the one on the screen, not the one you pull out of your ass. It's not as if "extreme" is a binary condition, although I know black and white thinking is endemic to Bush supporters.

It's obvious that you think Bush is an extremist based on the question in the OP. It's fair game to point out that many Republicans/Bush supporters would reject the premise of your question out of hand.

And yes I didn't answer your question but I suppose if he did (any/all) of the following I would turn my back on him is disgust:

1) Repeal the 2001 tax cuts
2) Reduce the readiness level of the armed forces / Cut the defense budget
3) Allow the court system to make all the social/cultural decisions without input from the States and Electorate (re: 10th vs. 14th amendments)
4) Become a spinless shill for trail attorneys and labor unions
5) Pull the troops out of Iraq and put the UN in control of the situation
6) Isolate/abandon Israel in an attempt to bring about peace in the Middle East
7) Seriously suggest that the US negotiate a cease fire with terrorists such as OBL

Allow one of the US's allies to be attacked with out response
9) Demonstarte he is veimently anti-buisness
10) After lining up and shooting the opposition in Congress, having the bill for the ammunition sent to their families

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-11-01 04:19pm

As long as Bush is waging a crusade against abortion, gay rights and proper sex education, his huge religious base will never desert him.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 04:40pm

Augustus, that list is a cheap evasion and you know it. Of course he would lose his supporters if he went 180 degrees around in the opposite direction, but that's NOT what I'm asking. I'm asking how much more extreme he could get in his current direction before his supporters finally decided he'd gone too far. Or (as is more likely) do they not understand the concept of balance, and assume that if a little of something is good, a lot is always even better?

As for the question of whether I think he's an extremist, of course he is; he has shown no willingness to compromise on any issue whatsoever, and in fact he considers his refusal to brook compromise to be a sign of "leadership". The fact that his supporters disagree doesn't prove anything, and I ask how much MORE extreme he could get before his supporters finally abandon ship, if that is even possible.

So I ask again: what would it take? No evasions this time, please.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-01 04:43pm

The reason so many of his "followers" continue to support him is that what he does can easily be rationalized- and some instances the reasons are even understandable.

Let's look at the examples you gave, for example.

he casts aside the Geneva Convention when convenient

This can be rationalized in two ways.

1. The terrorists don't follow/never signed the Geneva convention- so it does not apply to them.

2. The Geneva convention dosen't apply to terrorists since they don't follow its rules- ie they dress as civilians and dilberately target civiliians.

he runs up gigantic deficits

Can be justified/rationalized by appealing to 9/11 and the "need" for national defense.

then touts the resulting increase in GDP (pop quiz, how do you add $500 billion to the GDP? Answer: run a $500 billion deficit!),

Most followers are probably unaware that he did this, and if they did know they would simply state that he's simply using the debt (necessary for national defense) in the best way he can as an election tactic.

he invades countries based on false premises which are then repeatedly revised after the fact, yet none of that fazes his supporters.

First a Nitpick- He did this just with Iraq, not "countries" (which implies at least two- if not more).

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq can be justified for reasons other then the ones he used- so his "flip-flooping" on the reasons isn't a critical point for them. For example, many people think that Saddam supported terrorism, and this is just one example. The response, of such people, to what you said is along the lines of "yes, the reasons he gave for invading Iraq were complete bullshit- however we were still right to go in".

Another way of dismissing this point is: "Oh, he was just stating that to appease the Europeans/UN so we could take care of Saddam without their rasing to much of a fuss."

He already allows the Injustice Department under John Ashcroft to ignore Supreme Court rulings

Not sure how they would justify that one- other then by saying that this infraction is a minor thing compared to what the nation would be like under Kerry.

So what would he have to do in order to lose your support?

He dosen't have my suppport- and I doubt he has the support of most of the people on the board. I think a better question would be "what would Bush have to do to have done to completely alienate most of the "moderates/independants/undecided" voters who will decide the election.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2004-11-01 05:09pm

A nitpick of my own.......

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: Secondly, the invasion of Iraq can be justified for reasons other then the ones he used- so his "flip-flooping" on the reasons isn't a critical point for them. For example, many people think that Saddam supported terrorism, and this is just one example.

Saddam DID support terrorism, this is a proven FACT. He mostly supported non-secular terrorism, not Al-Qeada (even though there are indirect links).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-01 05:15pm

Sam Or I wrote:A nitpick of my own.......

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: Secondly, the invasion of Iraq can be justified for reasons other then the ones he used- so his "flip-flooping" on the reasons isn't a critical point for them. For example, many people think that Saddam supported terrorism, and this is just one example.
Saddam DID support terrorism, this is a proven FACT. He mostly supported non-secular terrorism, not Al-Qeada (even though there are indirect links).

A widow-and-orphan fund for the families of suicide bombers isn't equivalent to supporting terrorism. And al Qaeda is non-secular terrorist group.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-01 05:24pm

I think he meant secular, not non-secular.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-01 05:26pm

Durandal wrote:A widow-and-orphan fund for the families of suicide bombers isn't equivalent to supporting terrorism.

Ummm... yes it is. Anytime you're paying someone off for intentionally taking a certain course of action you are encouraging people to do that.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-01 05:29pm

Sam Or I wrote:A nitpick of my own.......

Saddam DID support terrorism, this is a proven FACT. He mostly supported non-secular terrorism, not Al-Qeada (even though there are indirect links).

I haven't done any research as to whether this is the case or not. However, it only proves my point.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters?

How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters?

Re: How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters

Re: How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters

Re: How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters

Re: How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters